The Diminishing Power of the American Citizen

In an effort to explain the diminishing power of the citizenry of America and the potential utter failure of its democracy, Sut Jhally describes two approaches known as the consciousness industry approach and the culture industry approach and their relation to political economy.  Jhally begins by emphasizing the importance, in a democracy, of having a broad range of viewpoints being freely expressed in manners appropriate.  This essential right of the people is guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution which prohibits the government from restricting free speech.  But as Jhally points out, the government is not the only entity that has the ability to stifle freedom of expression.  With capitalism as its economic system and with corporate control of the media, much of capitalist theory has become engrained in American culture.  Such is the case with the idea of the “marketplace of ideas” which has a dual meaning.  Either this could mean that through competition of varied ideas, truth will surface, or it could be understood as an actual marketplace where ideas are treated as commodities for sale.  In order for the latter idea to become widely accepted by the people, the owners of the means of production, the capitalists, must convince the people that it is the best way to treat ideas and expression.  Capitalist ownership of the media is beneficial in this endeavor, for as Jhally (1989) says, “In this the media are vital institutions that far from providing a free marketplace of ideas work to legitimate the existing distribution of power by controlling the context within which people think and define social problems and their possible solutions” (p. 67).  This is what can be described as the consciousness industry.  It is a system that protects the status quo by obtaining the blessings of the people by subtle persuasion through the media.  This is done by ensuring that a generally narrow, pro-capitalist set of ideas are delivered to the people.  An example of this bias is demonstrated by media giant Rupert Murdoch’s response to a question regarding whether or not his News Corp had a role in forming the current republican administrations’ policy in the Middle East.  He said, “No, I don’t think so. We tried [...] We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution (”Murdoch Confesses,” 2007).”  This shows the willingness of the media to bend the truth in order to satisfy their purposes and goals.  Another instance in which this behavior is exemplified can be seen by the recent activity of the Exxon-Mobil funded think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute.  In order to combat recent studies confirming global climate change, scientists were offered thousands of dollars to dispute the claims in the media, which would surely be featured seeing as how half of the stories in the media concerning global climate change mention the oil-industry’s position on the subject (”Oil Lobby,” 2007).  As can be seen, the media is used to further the causes of capitalist ideology, one of which being that of mass consumption.

The industrialization of culture is a phenomenon experienced by modern capitalist societies whose social framework is based upon consumption.  In explaining the negative effects of industrialization Jhally (1989) says, “The marketplace moves in to replace older forms of cultural activity.  Culture itself is made into a commodity and is bought and sold in the marketplace (p.71).”  This has drastically changed the way in which media content is treated.  Corporate interests, including the media, are rooted in making money.  Therefore, content is not judged on an aesthetic level, but on a monetary value level.  A controversial piece of media content may not be showcased by the media because it may offend certain audiences.  Subsequently, the advertisers who want to speak to those audiences will not associate themselves with the media in which the controversial content was displayed.  For instance, cable television network FX broadcasts controversial shows and loses certain advertisers as a result (Moss 2006).  The content of media is determined by the amount of money it will produce by attracting advertisers who dictate the general nature of said content.  What develops is a lack of risky programming and an abundance of cookie-cutter content.  Content loses its diversity and originality. Reality shows have dominated television programming due to the success of “Survivor”.  Music also suffers from the industrialization of culture.  The president of the Songwriters Guild of America, Rick Carnes said, “You can drive I-40 from Knoxville to Barstow, California, and hear the same 20 songs on every country radio station (Gerome 2006).”  This is a tragedy in a democracy which is supposed to protect and foster freedom of expression, regardless of how much money can be generated.  This is why the consciousness industry and the industrialization of culture must be considered when analyzing the media from a political economic approach.  The airwaves are theoretically owned by the people, but are in actuality controlled and owned by media conglomerates.  They are supposed to act in the interest of the people, but hardly do so as can be seen by the lack of real diversity and honesty within media content.  The great power of communicating to the masses is abused by stifling free speech by presenting a narrow ideology, persuading the people to consume unneeded material goods, and generating wealth for the few.  This is done easily when the tools are concentrated in the hands of a few.  Access to appropriate means of mass communication is not granted to the citizenry, which effectively silences them.